TOOLS FOR EVERY CITIZEN
RIGHT-TO-KNOW · PUBLIC COMMENT · BOARD ENGAGEMENT

On July 7, 2026, a formal written communication was delivered simultaneously to all Octorara Area School Board Directors, the Superintendent, and the Board Secretary — requesting that its contents be incorporated into the board package for community review. The following questions may be raised during public comment at the August board meeting.

• Q1

  Can the Board confirm whether the correspondence delivered to all Directors on July 7, 2026 was received? If so, was it reviewed, and was any determination made about including it in the board package?

  Basis: July 7, 2026 simultaneous delivery · documented in registry
• Q2

  What is the Board’s process for handling written communications submitted by community members requesting inclusion in board meeting materials? Is there a written policy governing that process?

  Basis: Policy inquiry — applicable to any district
• Q3

  Has the Board been made aware of the existence of two active Office of Open Records appeals — AP 2026-0167 and AP 2026-1329 — involving records requests submitted to this district? Can the Board confirm whether those proceedings have been discussed in executive session or otherwise deliberated upon?

  Basis: OOR AP 2026-0167 · AP 2026-1329 · active as of July 2026

When a school district uses taxpayer funds to pay legal fees associated with litigation, taxpayers have the right to understand the basis for that expenditure. These questions are relevant any time a school district is defending claims brought against individual board members or administrators.

• Q1

  Can the Board confirm the total amount of taxpayer funds and insurance proceeds expended on legal representation in connection with federal civil rights litigation filed in 2022? Has that amount been separately reported to taxpayers?

  Basis: Federal Case 2:22-cv-03329-KSM · Falgiatore board objections 2022–2024
• Q2

  When the Board votes to authorize legal expenditures for the defense of individual board members or administrators, does the Board receive a written legal opinion explaining why those expenditures are an appropriate use of district funds? Is that opinion available to taxpayers?

  Basis: Applicable to any district · general good governance question
• Q3

  Has any board member formally objected — on the record — to the authorization of legal expenditures in connection with any pending or resolved litigation? If so, what was the basis of that objection and how was it addressed?

  Basis: Falgiatore objections · board meeting minutes Nov 2023

Parents have the right to engage outside professionals — educational advocates, consultants, advisors — to assist them in navigating their child’s educational experience. Many districts have written policies governing how such professionals may interact with the district. These questions help clarify what those policies actually say.

• Q1

  Does this district have a written policy governing a parent’s right to bring an outside professional advocate, consultant, or advisor to meetings with district staff? If so, which policy number governs that right and where is it published?

  Basis: Universal parental rights question · applicable to any district
• Q2

  If a parent brings a non-attorney advocate or consultant to a meeting with district staff, does the district consider that advocate’s presence to waive any confidentiality the parent might otherwise hold? Is that position based on a written policy or legal opinion?

  Basis: ADA advocate privilege waiver question · universal applicability
• Q3

  Has the district ever issued a no-contact directive, trespass notice, or administrative restriction against a parent, guardian, or their professional representative who was engaged in lawful advocacy on behalf of a student? What process governs the issuance of such restrictions and what due process rights does the affected person have?

  Basis: Universal due process question · applicable to any district

Many school boards have policies requiring speakers at public meetings to state their name and address before speaking. The constitutional limits of such requirements — particularly as applied to non-residents speaking on behalf of constituents — have been actively litigated. These questions are relevant at any board that enforces such a policy.

• Q1

  Does this district’s public participation policy require speakers to identify themselves before speaking? If so, what is the stated basis for that requirement — and has the Board received a legal opinion addressing whether that requirement is enforceable against non-residents who are present on behalf of district residents?

  Basis: Policy 903 · applicable to any district with similar policy
• Q2

  If a speaker declines to identify themselves before public comment, what is the board’s procedure? Is the speaker removed? Is law enforcement called? Is there a written procedure governing that situation?

  Basis: March 21, 2022 meeting · Universal applicability

This template requests records showing how much a school district has spent on legal representation, whether insurance covered any of those costs, and what the board voted to authorize. Every taxpayer has the right to this information. This template is adapted from the RTK strategy documented in OOR AP 2026-0167 and AP 2026-1329.

When a school district’s solicitor also represents individual board members in litigation, a potential conflict of interest may exist. This template seeks records showing whether that conflict was disclosed and whether the district separately authorized payment for individual defense.

This template seeks the district’s written policies governing a parent’s right to bring outside professionals to meetings, engage non-attorney advocates, and access educational resources not provided by the district. Every parent has the right to know what the written policy actually says.

When a public institution issues a trespass notice or no-contact directive against a citizen, that citizen has the right to know the basis for that action, who authorized it, and what the process is for challenging or rescinding it. This template is drawn from the trespass notice sequence documented in this registry.

The registry is built on primary sources — documents, records, and contemporaneous communications that can be independently verified. If you have observed something relevant to the matters documented here, or have obtained records through your own RTK process that may add context to the public record, you may submit that information for consideration.

Submission does not guarantee incorporation. All submissions are reviewed before any finding is added to the registry. The review process prioritizes primary sources over secondhand accounts, and documented observations over interpretations.

• ▸

  Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) — File RTK appeals, access Final Determinations, search case law. Free to use.

  openrecords.pa.gov
• ▸

  Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law — Full text of the statute governing public records access in Pennsylvania.

  65 P.S. § 67.101 et seq. · Available at legis.state.pa.us
• ▸

  Pennsylvania Sunshine Act — Governs open meetings of public agencies, including school boards. Requires public notice, public access, and public comment opportunities.

  65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701–716 · Available at legis.state.pa.us
• ▸

  Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Open Government Guide — State-by-state guide to public records and open meetings laws. Useful for citizens in any state.

  rcfp.org/open-government-guide
• ▸

  MuckRock — A platform that helps citizens file public records requests and tracks responses. National scope.

  muckrock.com
• ▸

  Administrative Literacy Achievement Registry — The primary source record that these tools were built to support. A documented case study in citizen engagement with public institutions through lawful process.

  culturalcontrarianpma.org/administrative-literacy-achievement-registry/